‘Completely hijacked’: Supreme Court rebukes corporate affairs ministry over NCLT autonomy

The NCLT is meant to function as an independent adjudicatory institution. The Supreme Court’s phrase “completely hijacked” meant that, in its view, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had gained too much control over the tribunal’s administration. The court said this undermined the NCLT’s autonomy and affected how it worked.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the ministry wanted “a complete grip” over the institution. The criticism arose during suo motu proceedings on administrative problems at the NCLT. These concerns include staffing, infrastructure, support personnel and case listing. The court also heard that Companies Act matters were being delayed while insolvency cases received priority.

The court has now asked the NCLT and NCLAT presidents to submit detailed proposals on their staffing, infrastructure and administrative needs. The ministry’s response to Mint’s request for comment had not arrived when the report was published. The proceedings could therefore lead to changes in how the tribunal is administered.

The National Company Law Tribunal is a specialist forum for resolving important corporate matters. Its work includes adjudicating corporate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, or IBC. It also decides disputes and applications arising under the Companies Act. This gives the tribunal a central role in resolving problems involving companies.

The article highlights two broad streams of work. One is corporate insolvency resolution, where a financially distressed company is handled through the IBC process. The other involves Companies Act disputes. The tribunal’s benches may deal with both types of matters, although the article notes that only 30 benches handle both IBC and Companies Act cases.

Because companies, creditors and other parties depend on timely decisions, delays at the NCLT can have wide effects. Nearly 30,600 cases were pending as of March 2025. The Supreme Court is examining the tribunal’s administrative shortcomings, including vacancies, poor facilities, inadequate staff and technology disruptions.

The NCLT’s staffing gap is severe. As of 30 June 2026, it had 26 judicial members and 25 technical members, including its president. Together, that was 51 members against a sanctioned strength of 63. The shortage affects the tribunal’s ability to form benches and conduct regular hearings across its workload.

The NCLT Bar Association said 18 benches were holding half-day sittings because members were unavailable. It also reported that 246 proposed support-staff positions had not been operationalised. Court masters, bench officers and other personnel were largely working on temporary or contractual arrangements. These gaps add pressure beyond the shortage of tribunal members.

The workload is similarly large. Nearly 30,600 cases were pending before the NCLT as of March 2025, according to the Economic Survey 2025-26. Only 30 benches handle both IBC and Companies Act matters. Together, vacancies and case volume create a major capacity constraint and help explain continuing delays.

The NCLT handles both insolvency proceedings and disputes under the Companies Act. If insolvency matters are consistently listed first, Companies Act cases receive fewer hearing opportunities. The Supreme Court was concerned that this imbalance was delaying one category of corporate disputes and limiting equal access to the tribunal’s already scarce capacity.

The NCLT Bar Association told the court that case listings showed insolvency proceedings being prioritised. The article also notes that only 30 NCLT benches handle both IBC and Companies Act matters. When those benches focus heavily on insolvency work, Companies Act cases can remain pending even though they concern separate corporate issues.

This matters because delays can affect companies, shareholders and other parties waiting for legal decisions. It can also make the tribunal’s overall backlog harder to reduce. The Supreme Court’s examination of administration, staffing and listing practices may lead to proposals aimed at improving capacity and balancing the two streams of work.

NCLT cases need functioning benches, courtrooms, support staff and reliable case-management systems. If judicial or technical members are unavailable, benches may sit for only part of the day or hearings may be deferred. A shortage of court masters and bench officers can also slow filings, scheduling, orders and courtroom administration.

The NCLT Bar Association said 18 benches were holding half-day sittings because of member shortages. It also reported stalled renovation at the CGO Complex, inadequate courtroom facilities and 246 support-staff positions that had not been operationalised. Frequent outages of the document management system disrupted hearings. At the Delhi principal bench, poor building conditions had even led to floors being shut.

These failures reduce the number of hearings that can take place and create adjournments. They add to delays in insolvency and Companies Act matters, where parties need decisions to move forward. The court has asked the NCLT and NCLAT presidents to identify infrastructure, staffing and administrative requirements.

The corporate insolvency resolution process, or CIRP, is the IBC’s formal mechanism for dealing with a financially distressed company. It brings the company’s financial problems before the insolvency system so a resolution can be considered. The process is time-bound because delay can reduce the company’s value, keep creditors waiting and prolong uncertainty for employees and businesses.

The article gives the IBC a statutory timeline of 270 days for ongoing CIRPs, while the Economic Survey refers to a 330-day outer limit. In practice, the IBBI reported that ongoing CIRPs averaged 713 days as of March 2025. About 78% exceeded the 270-day timeline. Cases completed in financial year 2024-25 averaged 853 days.

The report identifies judicial delays, litigation and multiple proceedings as key obstacles. NCLT vacancies, limited benches and infrastructure problems add to those pressures. Faster resolution is therefore not only a legal target but also a capacity challenge. Improving tribunal administration could help bring actual timelines closer to the IBC’s intended limits.

The system divides functions among several institutions. The NCLT is the primary tribunal for corporate insolvency proceedings under the IBC and disputes under the Companies Act. The NCLAT is its appellate body, handling appeals from NCLT decisions. Together, they provide the main adjudicatory structure for company-law and insolvency matters.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is responsible for the tribunal’s administrative framework, including matters connected with appointments, staffing and facilities. The Supreme Court does not ordinarily manage daily NCLT work. In this case, however, it opened suo motu proceedings to examine administrative shortcomings and questioned whether ministry control was undermining NCLT autonomy.

The court asked the presidents of the NCLT and NCLAT to submit comprehensive proposals covering infrastructure, staffing and administration. The attorney general also proposed a joint meeting involving government officials, tribunal leadership and bar representatives. The intended division is therefore adjudication by tribunals, administration by government, and judicial oversight by the Supreme Court when institutional concerns arise.